Tenants Granted 60-Day Reprieve: Telangana High Court Intervenes in Cantonment Eviction Dispute

In a move aimed at balancing administrative action with the rights of occupiers, the High Court of Telangana has intervened in a tense standoff between tenants and the Secunderabad Cantonment Board. The court issued an order providing a 60-day window for tenants to vacate their premises, effectively halting a demolition drive that had been slated to commence on a 48-hour notice.

The Conflict: A Race Against the Bulldozer

The petitioners, Dr. M. Anand Kumar and his co-occupants, have operated a clinic and commercial business in the Secunderabad Cantonment area since 2019. Tensions escalated on May 15, 2026, when authorities issued a notice demanding that the premises be vacated within a mere 48 hours to facilitate the demolition of what the Board labeled “unauthorized construction.”

The petitioners challenged the notice, arguing that it was issued without prior warning and that they were excluded from the proceedings, constituting a violation of the principles of natural justice and their constitutional rights under Articles 14 (Equality), 19 (Freedom of trade), 21 (Right to life), and 300A (Right to property).

Conflicting Perspectives

Counsel for the petitioners emphasized the immense investment made into the clinics and the businesses, arguing that a 48-hour notice was grossly insufficient and procedurally unfair.

Conversely, the Deputy Solicitor General of India, representing the Union of India and the Cantonment Board, stood by the legality of the notice, asserting that it was a standard procedure against unauthorized structures. However, in a pragmatic turn, the respondents indicated that they had no objection to granting a reasonable timeframe should the occupants agree to vacate the site.

Key Observations

The Court underscored the necessity of procedural fairness, noting: * "This Writ Petition is filed declaring the action of respondent No.2... as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice." * "The petitioners submit that they were neither served with any prior notice nor made parties to any proceedings." * "Till expiry of the said period, respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioners."

The Court’s Compromise

Presiding over the matter, Hon'ble Sri Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka acknowledged the petitioners' willingness to move voluntarily if given adequate time. By granting a 60-day period for the tenants to vacate, the court successfully averted an immediate, coercive eviction.

The order serves as a reminder to municipal and cantonment authorities that while the enforcement of building codes is essential, the procedure for eviction must respect the basic tenets of due process. For the tenants of Hasmathpet Road, the court’s decision provides a vital, albeit temporary, period of stability to relocate their businesses.

Disclaimer: This article is based on the court order issued on May 29, 2026, in WP 16894/2026.